Author Topic: The city moves to terminate the Landing's lease agreement.  (Read 15345 times)

Captain Zissou

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3389
Re: The city moves to terminate the Landing's lease agreement.
« Reply #165 on: June 11, 2018, 02:59:19 PM »
^As a known Shad Khan apologist, your motives are pretty obvious.  This area is very suspect.  The capital investment is extremely high and the crowds needed for this to be successful just don't seem to be supported by the Jax demographics.  In the off chance that this is fully built out and successful, the Landing will surely go under and downtown will be worse off for it.

Tacachale

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6951
Re: The city moves to terminate the Landing's lease agreement.
« Reply #166 on: June 11, 2018, 03:50:20 PM »
^I don't see a universe in which Lot J and the Landing would not be competing for tenants and events. During something like Florida-Georgia, there would probably be enough crowds to go around, but even on game days they'll be in competition. The Landing could probably survive it by adapting, but that would take more resources than either side is apparently comfortable devoting to it.
Do you believe that when the blue jay or another bird sings and the body is trembling, that is a signal that people are coming or something important is about to happen?

KenFSU

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3389
Re: The city moves to terminate the Landing's lease agreement.
« Reply #167 on: June 11, 2018, 04:36:03 PM »
^I don't see a universe in which Lot J and the Landing would not be competing for tenants and events. During something like Florida-Georgia, there would probably be enough crowds to go around, but even on game days they'll be in competition. The Landing could probably survive it by adapting, but that would take more resources than either side is apparently comfortable devoting to it.

Even though Sleiman and Lot J will likely be competing for events and tenants, I think they're ultimately both serving two totally different audiences 90% of the time.

For better or worse, the Lot J entertainment complex is going to be drive and park for the foreseeable future, potentially for over a decade until residential infill starts happening. It's going to pull in people going to events in the stadium complex who - let's face it - are primarily coming in from outside the urban core and who probably wouldn't be headed to the Landing or CBD, even if Lot J wasn't a thing.

The Landing, meanwhile, is mostly pulling in business from people who are already downtown. Either they work down here during the week, or they live downtown, or they're out walking the riverwalk, etc.

What's ironic to me is that Sleiman's vision for the Landing is more like Lot J - a destination that people drive to and park at - and Lamping's vision for Lot J is more like the Landing - a dense, pedestrian scale development with limited parking that actively serves workers and residents living in the sports complex.

If I'm Sleiman, it seems like it might be smart to see the writing on the wall and start pivoting from the Landing as a be-all, end-all destination for suburbanites, with tenants like the Cheesecake Factory and PF Chang's, to a more utilitarian Landing that superserves a growing residential and business population in the urban core.

Bring in tenants like Starbucks/Bold Bean, or Walgreens, or Subway, or Panera, or Chick Fil-A, mixed with some local restaurants (Taco Lu, Safe Harbor, Als, whatever) and breweries, and I think you've got something that the existing downtown population can use 365 days a year, event day or non-event day instead of having to rely on tourists and drivers.

I also think you could make it successful without changing a thing structurally.

I don't think utilitarian matches Sleiman's vision though.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2018, 04:37:56 PM by KenFSU »
Big League City! 100 Years of Football in Jacksonville, with foreword by Shad Khan, now available!
http://www.amazon.com/Big-League-City-Football-Jacksonville/dp/0990342409/

remc86007

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 639
Re: The city moves to terminate the Landing's lease agreement.
« Reply #168 on: June 11, 2018, 04:50:30 PM »
^If there were a Safe Harbor and Taco Lu in the Landing, it would be in a very different condition than it is.


Tacachale

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6951
Re: The city moves to terminate the Landing's lease agreement.
« Reply #169 on: June 11, 2018, 04:57:18 PM »
^I don't see a universe in which Lot J and the Landing would not be competing for tenants and events. During something like Florida-Georgia, there would probably be enough crowds to go around, but even on game days they'll be in competition. The Landing could probably survive it by adapting, but that would take more resources than either side is apparently comfortable devoting to it.

Even though Sleiman and Lot J will likely be competing for events and tenants, I think they're ultimately both serving two totally different audiences 90% of the time.

For better or worse, the Lot J entertainment complex is going to be drive and park for the foreseeable future, potentially for over a decade until residential infill starts happening. It's going to pull in people going to events in the stadium complex who - let's face it - are primarily coming in from outside the urban core and who probably wouldn't be headed to the Landing or CBD, even if Lot J wasn't a thing.

The Landing, meanwhile, is mostly pulling in business from people who are already downtown. Either they work down here during the week, or they live downtown, or they're out walking the riverwalk, etc.

What's ironic to me is that Sleiman's vision for the Landing is more like Lot J - a destination that people drive to and park at - and Lamping's vision for Lot J is more like the Landing - a dense, pedestrian scale development with limited parking that actively serves workers and residents living in the sports complex.

If I'm Sleiman, it seems like it might be smart to see the writing on the wall and start pivoting from the Landing as a be-all, end-all destination for suburbanites, with tenants like the Cheesecake Factory and PF Chang's, to a more utilitarian Landing that superserves a growing residential and business population in the urban core.

Bring in tenants like Starbucks/Bold Bean, or Walgreens, or Subway, or Panera, or Chick Fil-A, mixed with some local restaurants (Taco Lu, Safe Harbor, Als, whatever) and breweries, and I think you've got something that the existing downtown population can use 365 days a year, event day or non-event day instead of having to rely on tourists and drivers.

I also think you could make it successful without changing a thing structurally.

I don't think utilitarian matches Sleiman's vision though.

I think you'd have to do a lot to it to make it work no matter the tenants. A lot of interior remodeling in the very least. But, much cheaper than tearing the thing down in favor of some stick-built apartments and a road on the riverfront.
Do you believe that when the blue jay or another bird sings and the body is trembling, that is a signal that people are coming or something important is about to happen?

thelakelander

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28127
    • Modern Cities
Re: The city moves to terminate the Landing's lease agreement.
« Reply #170 on: June 11, 2018, 09:30:31 PM »
^I don't see a universe in which Lot J and the Landing would not be competing for tenants and events. During something like Florida-Georgia, there would probably be enough crowds to go around, but even on game days they'll be in competition. The Landing could probably survive it by adapting, but that would take more resources than either side is apparently comfortable devoting to it.

Even though Sleiman and Lot J will likely be competing for events and tenants, I think they're ultimately both serving two totally different audiences 90% of the time.

90% of the year, the Sports District won't have enough people in it to sustain something of the Landing's size without pulling people in on non-event days and nights.  Anything added at the Shipyards/Stadium area will compete with downtown for the same tenants and consumer base. The market isn't strong enough to support something mutually exclusive.

Quote
What's ironic to me is that Sleiman's vision for the Landing is more like Lot J - a destination that people drive to and park at - and Lamping's vision for Lot J is more like the Landing - a dense, pedestrian scale development with limited parking that actively serves workers and residents living in the sports complex.

They're both the same thing. Lot J will have a big ass garage and there's tons of surface parking surrounding it. The full build out in those renderings isn't happening soon, regardless of what's being said. If so, half the place will be sitting empty and they'll be lighting their money (or taxpayer's money) on fire.

Quote
If I'm Sleiman, it seems like it might be smart to see the writing on the wall and start pivoting from the Landing as a be-all, end-all destination for suburbanites, with tenants like the Cheesecake Factory and PF Chang's, to a more utilitarian Landing that superserves a growing residential and business population in the urban core.

Bring in tenants like Starbucks/Bold Bean, or Walgreens, or Subway, or Panera, or Chick Fil-A, mixed with some local restaurants (Taco Lu, Safe Harbor, Als, whatever) and breweries, and I think you've got something that the existing downtown population can use 365 days a year, event day or non-event day instead of having to rely on tourists and drivers.

I also think you could make it successful without changing a thing structurally.

Before the suits, I would have said Sleiman was in control to beat Lot J to the punch. It will be years before anything on Lot J opens its doors. Sleiman could simply clean up and retrofit the existing building without significant expense. The riverfront spots seem to keep tenants, so it could easily continue to be what it is, filled with businesses like Hooters. For the mall, all he needs to do is look at these two projects:

https://watersidedistrict.com/

http://armatureworks.com/

Knock out most of the partition walls and carve up the old mall with a mix of public market/food hall space, limited retail facing the central courtyard/Independent Drive and a couple of big box spaces that could be used for a mix of event space, retail, office and cultural uses. Tenants in a public market/food hall space may not have the same dedicated parking requirements as chains. Repurposing space for tenants that may not require as much dedicated parking would free up the parking already in hand for a few extra chains as anchors. The biggest problem I see is that the city owns the land surrounding the Landing. It doesn't maintain its property like a first class center either. If COJ isn't a willing redevelopment partner (new building or retrofit of the old) the Landing will struggle.

Quote
I don't think utilitarian matches Sleiman's vision though.

You can be transformative with existing infrastructure. Waterside is the same thing as the Landing. It sucked like the Landing until it was revamped to conform with 21st century urban retail, dining and entertainment trends. Unfortunately, I believe the current administration also wants the place gone.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2018, 09:39:10 PM by thelakelander »
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali

KenFSU

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3389
Re: The city moves to terminate the Landing's lease agreement.
« Reply #171 on: June 11, 2018, 10:46:44 PM »
90% of the year, the Sports District won't have enough people in it to sustain something of the Landing's size without pulling people in on non-event days and nights.  Anything added at the Shipyards/Stadium area will compete with downtown for the same tenants and consumer base. The market isn't strong enough to support something mutually exclusive.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like it's the Landing's competition to lose.

I've been working downtown for about 8 months now, and I've just seen no evidence whatsoever that the existing downtown customer base has any interest in trekking down to the sports complex for lunch, or even for after work drinks at Intuition. It's just too far removed from downtown proper. Even Olio seems to be pushing it for my friends and coworkers, and that's 10 blocks west of Lot J (almost a mile).

Strictly due to the location, I think a serviceable Jacksonville Landing will always be fine, regardless of what Khan does with Lot J.

However, I do think the prospect of a great Landing should probably scare Khan quite a bit.

Personally, I'm pretty scared that we're going to finance the Cordish development on the back of unrealistic TIF projections, and end up have to dip into the general fund for years to make up the difference until the market catches up.

And I'm even more scared that the mayor is going to eliminate the biggest retail center in a downtown already short on active retail space, and try to replace it with a Cordish development a mile and a half away.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2018, 10:49:33 PM by KenFSU »
Big League City! 100 Years of Football in Jacksonville, with foreword by Shad Khan, now available!
http://www.amazon.com/Big-League-City-Football-Jacksonville/dp/0990342409/

thelakelander

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28127
    • Modern Cities
Re: The city moves to terminate the Landing's lease agreement.
« Reply #172 on: June 12, 2018, 05:30:34 AM »
Lot J will get financed but yes, when it comes to location and direct impact on the Northbank, the Landing wins hands down. Get it right and Laura Street would actually end up being pretty decent from a vibrancy standpoint once VyStar, Hotel Indigo, FSCJ, the Barnett and Trio projects come online.

However, even with a retrofit of the existing structure, COJ would still have to be a willing partner or at least not sabotage the effort. The parking situation (which COJ claims it's fulfilled) needs to be resolved and the poorly maintained grounds surrounding the place would have to be upgraded as a part of a retrofit to better tie it into downtown. Yet right now, it seems like some would rather see the place fail than succeed if that means Sleiman personally benefits from the success.

"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali

Snaketoz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 264
Re: The city moves to terminate the Landing's lease agreement.
« Reply #173 on: June 13, 2018, 05:40:27 PM »
The latest move by COJ to prevent Sleiman's success at the Landing....https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2018/06/13/city-seeks-to-dismiss-2015-parking-lot-case.html

sanmarcomatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1039
  • Mayor of The Coffee District

dp8541

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Re: The city moves to terminate the Landing's lease agreement.
« Reply #175 on: July 27, 2018, 09:57:34 AM »
Another example of a possibility for the landing in Tampa.  They demo'ed some of the buildings on the water (which were blocking the view of the water) and are adding a wharf with a 1 acre courtyard, food vendors in shipping containers and beer garden to open this fall.  Office and fixed commercial to come in the future.   Jax could take some ideas between Armature Works and this new channelside for possible changes to the landing.  Something like Armature Works could likely be completed in the existing structure of the landing.

https://www.tbo.com/news/business/realestate/Channelside-Bay-Plaza-to-be-remade-as-Sparkman-Wharf-with-waterfront-lawn-beer-garden-outdoor-dining-and-loft-style-offices_170322184

tufsu1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10877
Re: The city moves to terminate the Landing's lease agreement.
« Reply #176 on: July 30, 2018, 12:08:01 PM »
^ agreed - this is a great example - just takes visionary ownership

copperfiend

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3522
Re: The city moves to terminate the Landing's lease agreement.
« Reply #177 on: July 30, 2018, 04:41:45 PM »
I have spent time recently in Milwaukee for work. I have had lunch at the Public Market there. Something like that at the Landing would be terrific.

JaxJersey-licious

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 398
Re: The city moves to terminate the Landing's lease agreement.
« Reply #178 on: August 01, 2018, 04:58:57 PM »
Conversion to a food hall would be the obvious next step in the evolution of the Landing but I have my concerns about it with Sleiman running the show like how capable would he be in attracting new interesting vendors when he has trouble getting new interesting vendors as is particularly with the legal issues he's facing. Or would there be preferential treatment lease-wise to established brick and mortars at his other properties setting up shop at the Landing? Plus the perceived problems of parking could limit the success of such a venture at this location since visitor and residential numbers right now are what they are.

Even with those obstacles, the Landing really needs to plant the first flag as a pioneer because they can possibly miss out on this trend. The concept of a full-fledged food hall coming to Jacksonville is a near certainty and there is that mysterious company buying all this property on Park St. Hmm...intact abandoned industrial buildings ripe for reconfiguration, ample parking available, close to the core, not far from trendy neighborhoods; this mirrors the settings of many newly established food halls around the country like Armature Works, Union Market in DC, Industrial City in the other Brooklyn, etc. An older industrial area missing out is just a typical missed opportunity with little consequence but a Jacksonville Landing missing out on a possibly transformative moment will leave a black eye the city would rather not present to visitors.   

 

KenFSU

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3389
Re: The city moves to terminate the Landing's lease agreement.
« Reply #179 on: August 07, 2018, 01:40:38 PM »
Shocker, the city is trying to block Curry from having to give sworn testimony on the Landing situation, and isn't being cooperative with Sleiman's admittedly broad document request.

Quote
On May 25, JLI served subpoenas to Mayor Lenny Curry and city Chief Administrative Officer Sam Mousa directing them to present themselves for depositions Aug. 16 and 17, respectively, and to provide a range of documents related to the city's business relationship with JLI.

The request from JLI includes “every document in existence since August 1, 2003 in the possession or control of the consolidated government of the City of Jacksonville that relates in any way to the lease between the City and JLI, regardless of whether those documents have any relevance to an issue in this case.”...

The city filed, on June 4, objections to the document requests, on the grounds the request is overly broad and burdensome.

The city also requested that the subpoena served on Curry be quashed and that the court issue a protective order to prevent JLI from deposing him, based on his position as a high-ranking public official and that JLI has not exhausted all other means to gather the information sought in the subpoena.

No details as to why, but the circuit judge just recused herself three days before initial court proceedings.

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/dispute-between-jacksonville-landing-city-gets-new-judge
Big League City! 100 Years of Football in Jacksonville, with foreword by Shad Khan, now available!
http://www.amazon.com/Big-League-City-Football-Jacksonville/dp/0990342409/